From "Amazon has patented a system that would put workers in a cage, on top of a robot" (The Seattle Times).
The idea of a human being in a cage on top of a robot seems to distress people more than the total exclusion of humans from "robot-only zones." The "cage" is a protective enclosure around the person, so it's like a helmet or a car, but we have a special sensitivity about the openness of a metal enclosure....
Why the sensitivity? If the shell around the person were solid metal or plastic and metal (like a car) would it seem very different? Perhaps yes, because we couldn't say "cage." Why does the openness seem more offensively confining? It must be the association with animals. It's not that animals are treated worse by putting them in containers that are as open-air as possible. It's the best way to confine them, maximizing ventilation and light. We're offended when something associated with animals is used on a human being. Thus, a more confining shell to protect the Amazon worker in the robot zone would probably leave most of us untroubled.
It reminds me of the objections to a harness and leash for a toddler. It would let him roam around a bit and explore and get some exercise, but who dares to use this method of protecting and keeping control of a little child? So perfectly healthy and ambulatory kids are strapped into strollers and wheeled about like invalids. Their exercise — when they are not sleeping or groggily inert — is squirming.
Posts
42 comments:
"that firm boundary between human and robot "
That boundary is a social construct. In reality there's a spectrum. How long until we see mixed marriages and people that identify as robots who find those boundaries intolerable?
It's funny that you mention it, because I have used a harness and retractable dog leash for my toddler. It lets her explore and run around without getting into anything dangerous. My wife was skeptical at first, but she loves it now. Her very liberal sister said it was inhumane, but we always get admiring comments from other parents at the zoo etc. and my child can outwalk any of us adults.
"Bezos loves you this I know, because the patent tell me so"
Blogger Bob Boyd said...
"that firm boundary between human and robot "
That boundary is a social construct.
Can I wake up in the morning and self identify for the day as a robot?
Does Target have robot bathrooms where trans-robots can change their oil?
Is "robot" one of the 73 genders?
"O brave new world,
That has such people in ’t!"
Radio Japan always pronounces robot like the name Rob, the announcer having a perfect American accent otherwise.
Words you learn wrong somewhere along the way.
"Can I wake up in the morning and self identify for the day as a robot?"
Yes absolutely, I encourage it, but maybe at first we should put you on a harness and leash until we see how you do. Before we turn you loose on an unsuspecting world, we need to know if you're going to be C3PO or an over-sized Roomba.
Shark cages are okay.
Maybe it'd be too similar to the day the robots went crazy at Itchy & Scratchy Land.
Maybe we should use these to transport illegals back across the border?
So since it's to allow a human to enter an already fenced area, technically it's just a mobile exclusion area.
Back in the mid-fifties, my Mom used to put me on a leash when we were traveling (usually by train). She could sit in the waiting room, say, at Grand Central Station, while I ran my little legs off in relative safety.
Even in those days, she says she drew comments from strangers for it. It makes perfect sense to me, though.
The article quotes this from the intrepid researchers:
“Here, the worker becomes a part of a machinic ballet, held upright in a cage which dictates and constrains their movement.”
Just replace "worker" with "child" and "cage" with "booster seat" to gain a modicum of context.
As for tethers and machinic ballets -- just think of astronauts.
When we picked up golf balls at my father's driving range, we were inside a cage. The truck that pushed the ball picker had a cage and we even had small ones that rested on our shoulders if we walked and picked them up from places the truck couldn't go.
People hitting balls on tees would aim at us.
Meh. Mobile machinery guards with a system kill switch if violated. No engineer worth his license leaves machinery hazards unguarded and OSHA would shut the operation down if he did. But, associate equipment guarding with the word "robot" and hysterics ensue.
Thinking of how horribly injured one could be wandering around within a robot's reach, the cage sounds pretty good.
Any robot worth its salt would be able to get through that flimsy cage and kill the human.
When you are in a car or some such, you can see what's outside, but can't be seen yourself. When you are in a cage, either with wire or with glass walls, you are on display for others to see.
A "cage" is what motorcyclist call automobiles.
MB said...
"When you are in a car or some such, you can see what's outside, but can't be seen yourself."
You're fooling yourself. You were picking your nose just the other day.
The cage is a machine guard regulated by OSHA.
Robots can be extremely hazardous to people in the workplace. One day, I hope the control systems are designed to make them safer to work around but we're not quite there.
"...perfectly ambulatory kids are.....in strollers...."
Yup. Because a perfectly ambulatory 3-YO is slow as molasses in the store, and time is money. They can perambulate around the house, or yard, any time.
Bob Boyd said...You're fooling yourself. You were picking your nose just the other day.
--
"No pick. No pick!"
The most expensive component of any material handling system is the human being.
The first company to fully employ adaptive learning/lights out/round-the-clock/self-maintaining fully automated facilities will win.
And inevitably lead to SkyNet.
The first thing I though about when I read the headline is Jurassic Park. Instead of humans and robots it would be humans and raptors. And you know how well that worked! :)
Same here, Richard. Though I soon began to envision it in a Mission Impossible scenario.
As several others have noted, robots must generally separated from people with a cage. Just like any other machine. New proximity sensors and other safety devices have reduced the need for this.
There is a whole class of robots called "Collaborative Robots" or "Cobots" that do not require any guarding and can work alongside a person. If they do hit the person, it is no more than a bit of a nudge. The only difference between a robot nudge and a human nudge is that the human might say excuse me. (But maybe not)
Lots of companies make them but my 2 favorites are Baxter from Rethink https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXOkWuSCkRI
And the UR series from Universal Robotics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIcxOGo7ieU
Here's an article explaining Collaborative Robots https://www.packagingdigest.com/robotics/what-are-collaborative-robots-and-why-should-you-care1505
As for the Amazon robot, I don't even see why that would be patentable. All it is is a cage on top of what looks to be one of Kiva's (Now Amazon Automation)Autonomous Guided Vehicle (AGV) robots. In 2016 that might have been required with the technology that Amazon was using. It may still be a good idea.
Amazon has, literally, thousands of AGVs running all over warehouses and schlepping shelves around. AGV technology has long existed that allows AGVs to safely interact with Humans. Adept sells systems that autonomously deliver mail in offices, medicines in hospitals and other similar apps.
The seem to move slower than the Amazon warehouse AGVs and I think there is a maximum speed for AGVs in this kind of app. So Amazon's cage may still be a good idea to allow a worker to enter a robotic warehouse without slowing or stopping the other robots.
I don't see this as a big deal at all.
John Henry
Blogger Drago said...
The first company to fully employ adaptive learning/lights out/round-the-clock/self-maintaining fully automated facilities will win.
Except for the need to pick up dropped items, the Amazon warehouses are 99% there. I don't see why that can't be done autonomously. Or at least remotely. Why does the person need to be on the robot at all? They can sit in a cubicle and operate it with a joystick and cameras.
They still need people to take the stuff off the shelf the robot brings and pack it but that is being automated too.
There are a number of "Man and a dog" or "lights out" facilities in assembly and electronic component production.
"Man and a dog" because the only employees they require is a man and a dog: The man is there to feed the dog and the dog is there to bite the man if they try to touch anything.
John Henry
How long until we see mixed marriages and people that identify as robots who find those boundaries intolerable?
"=" is selectively exclusive, but progress will take its toll. Just like duck dynasties before it.
Althouse: "We're offended when something associated with animals is used on a human being. Thus, a more confining shell to protect the Amazon worker in the robot zone would probably leave most of us untroubled."
You're gonna have to... Serve Somebody
You might be a rock 'n' roll addict prancing on the stage
You might have drugs at your command, women in a cage
You may be a business man or some high-degree thief
They may call you doctor or they may call you chief
But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes you are
You're gonna have to serve somebody
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody
The kid leash issue is that you are teaching your kid to be dependent unthinking while the parent avoids the hard work of parenting. Lose-lose
Bezo's treats Objects like women
they working on intrinsically safe robots via mechanics, not computer. http://www.mie.neu.edu/news/working-alongside-robots
Howard,
There are various approaches to collaborative robots but the two brands I mentioned, Universal and Baxter from Rethink are both mechanically safe rather than relying on computers. They've been doing it for 6-7 years.
One of the technologies is called, IIRC, "elastic servomotors" When they sense resistance they stop. Where sensors stop the robot before they touch you, UR and Rethink stop the robot after they touch you but before they touch you hard.
An issue even with these is that it depends also on what they are carrying. If carrying something sharp, even a gentle touch can injure a person. If carrying something heavy, even when the robot stops the momentum may turn a soft touch into a harder one.
I've put my head in the path of a Rethink robot. Didn't hurt.
As I said, no more than the gentle nudge you might accidentally give me with your elbow if we were working side by side.
Here's a picture of me shaking hands with a Rethink Robot https://www.packagingdigest.com/sites/default/files/styles/featured_image_750x422/public/Baxter%2072%20dpi_0.jpg?itok=xo2-P8jb
Here's a picture of me between 2 operating Universal Robotics robots https://www.packagingdigest.com/sites/default/files/styles/featured_image_750x422/public/Universal%20robot%2072%20dpi.JPG?itok=kviX4ttV
Both from March 2015
John Henry
<< When we picked up golf balls at my father's driving range, we were inside a cage.
<< The truck that pushed the ball picker had a cage and we even had small ones that
>> rested on our shoulders if we walked and picked them up from places the truck
>> couldn't go.
>> People hitting balls on tees would aim at us.
For at least 99 and 44/100 % of the golfers on the planet, standing where they are aiming is the safest place to be, even including the NORAD bunker in Colorado Springs .
The only time one of my shots goes anywhere near where I am aiming , I am aiming at the water hazard.
I taught my son to ski using a leash and harness. By 13 he was better than me and now he is a Marine. I also taught him to wear a helmet.
By all means let us replace these safety cages with “intrinsicly safe robots.”
Nothing can possibly go wrong.
...........Go wrong..........Go wrong..........Go wrong
man and a dog
About 20 years ago I toured the plant which makes those ubiquitous plastic-molding green chairs found on damn near every porch or deck in the USA.
Place had 4 men, turned out about 200 chairs/hour. Three of the men ran the controls and feeder-system, the 4th ran the forklift hauling stacked finished goods outta there.
I don't know if it's still true (it's been a long time since I was in a machine shop), but machine tool operators' arms used to be tethered to their machines -- not to chain them to their work, but to prevent them from accidently putting their hands under the drill press or whatever. Whoever did the study that inspired this news story (should I say "news"?) is either anti-technology or anti-Amazon. Apparently Amazon didn't implement "the cage"; the solution actually adopted to protect the humans in the robot environment is a vest that tells the robots where there's a human. But that's harder to turn into an anti-technology myth.
I didn't bother to read the article, but there must be an anti-Trump angle in there somewhere.
Godfather,
Wow! That was certainly not true of the machine shop where I worked summers while in college.
This is like comparing a border wall between the USA and Mexico with the Berlin Wall: they're both walls, BUT one was built to keep people in and the other to keep people out.
And so, too, with a cage to protect employees near robots: it's not a prison, it's safety equipment; its purpose is not to confine the employee but to prevent robots from endangering employees.
"See, it's different when it's construction guys in a cage on a bulldozer or backhoe, because shut up..."
Post a Comment